[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:22:55 PST
- Cc: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu, cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 23 Jan 89 21:45 PST <890123-214709-2907@Xerox>
re: Insofar as GLOBAL is very like LEXICAL, it would count for "current
practice", would it not? The reason for GLOBAL is primarily for performance
-- it is a deep-bound implementation, and references to GLOBAL variables
are significantly faster. I don't think Medley users would get along OK
without it. I don't think users of *any* deep-bound implementation would
Quite right. You can also add to current practice that QLISP uses a
GLOBAL declaration in just about the same way that Interlisp-D/Medley
does. [It was probably my comment in the Discussion that you referred to
when you said "It would be possible to submit a proposal for a GLOBAL (G)
declaration under separate cover if anyone (Xerox?) was interested."]
I think QLISP would find acceptable the minor adjustment about allowing
purely local lexical rebinding of proclaimed GLOBAL's. Surely Medley
would have no trouble accommodating either.
-- JonL --
P.S. QLISP is a research prototype of Lucid Common Lisp running on a
certain parallel processor. It uses deep-binding for the obvious
reason. By the bye, "research prototype" doesn't mean "it's a dog";
there is some serious research being conducted using QLISP as a tool.